Do you know what could be the reason why I cannot get promised 3.2 GB/second?And why PRO has slower performance than cheaper EVO?

I even swapped PRO and EVO between NVMe slots on my motherboard, but the results were consistent: PRO was slower than EVO.

Update (thanks to mugunin):Finally the benchmark that looks similar to what I measured (sequential read):---http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_960_evo_m2_nvme_ssd_reviewIn our 2MB sequential benchmark, the Samsung 960 EVO recorded the best results in read with 2,308.5MB/s—even beating out the 960 Pro. On writes, it came in second with 1,660.9MB/s, only losing to the Pro version.---

I've read somewhere, that if we try to read huge amount of data from that SSD, then SSD overheats and slows itself down in order to prevent damage.So my hope was that this "up to" clause was covering that.But in my tests I was only reading few percent of the total capacity of the SSD...

In any case, that marketing trick does not explain why theoretically faster PRO works slower than theoretically slower EVO.

=== cut ===The Samsung 960 EVO is truly as fast as the Samsung 950 Pro, faster even in many benchmarks. That is insane, for a TLC-NAND solid state drive to be honest....the 960 EVO has two type of built-in SLC cache portions before the actual TLC NAND. One is dynamic and one is fixed....Samsung labels this technology Intelligent TurboWrite. ...Basically all 960 Evo models have a fixed amount of SLC cache that varies between 4GB to 6GB for caching; and on top of that, there is also an additional dynamic SLC cache that can increase and decrease itself between 9GB to a whooping 36GB depends on the available free space on the SSD....The drawback of this method is once the cache runs out or the drive is getting full, you start to experience the ugly truth of TLC NAND. It simply doesn’t have the sustain performance that of SLC or MLC type SSDs. So you should not be surprise when you are installing a big game or copy a huge movie/music library where progress jumps to 40% completion in 5 seconds then the rest take 5 minutes to reach the finish line. But other than that, you won’t notice the performance difference between MLC (960 Pro) and TLC (960 Evo) under many other daily activities.=== cut ===

1) I was reading 80 GB set of files and did not notice any significant slowdown after reaching "a whooping 36GB" upper limit on cache...

2) I did notice the difference: EVO was ~10% faster that PRO.

3) There are two prominent grammar mistakes in the last paragraph you quoted:- "you should not be surprise"[d]- "progress jumps to 40% completion in 5 seconds then the rest take"[s]So it looks like the article was written by somebody who does not take it seriously. $7/article content writer from Philippines?